Ann, did you read the transcript? He was using the words screw(ed) within quotes in larger contexts to emulate people who talk, email, or call him saying that the Republicans because of McCain or Obama are screwed. I don't think there is any self-contradictory statements there at all in reference to how Limbaugh characterizes himself as not wanting to be around negative people. You might want to give it another read.

I know his basic point is intended to cheer people up. He demands optimism and he won't give up even if it means thinking of victory only in the long term. My post is intended to point you to the whole thing, which you have to read to complete the idea. Ugh, why am I explaining my method? Don't be such a drag.

My post is intended to point you to the whole thing, which you have to read to complete the idea.Sorry to be a drag, Ann, but is this evidence of jetlag?

The piece is titled "Why We're Not Screwed," and is a minor rant against negativism. Rush's own use of the term here is definitely not self-contradictory:

I don't think we're screwed.If I thought we were screwed, I would retire.

Or are you focussing solely on his closing jab at non-conservative Republicans, "Screw them"? Where is the contradiction in that? For the purposes of this dicussion, non-conservative Republicans are negative people -- Rush's rejection of them is consistent with everything else he said.

Desperation? No. Frustration, yes. Because conservative principals win elections, and we have damn few candidates who espouse them. Republicans deserve the drubbing we'll most likely get in November.

But we'll survive, and eventually thrive,and who knows what good will come down the line. The US as a nation is much more than the fate of a single political party. There's a lot that's messed up here, but far less than there is in pretty much every other country in the world -- and there is so much good here it far outweighs the bad. I sense the culture struggling to break away from the claw-like hold of the Summer of Love generation. Maybe in the next 10 years or so, we'll succeed, and then we can finally progress out of our cultural adolescence.

Or maybe I'm just optimistic because I want the world my children to live in to be at least as good as the one I've enjoyed so far.

Joan said..."The piece is titled "Why We're Not Screwed," and is a minor rant against negativism. Rush's own use of the term here is definitely not self-contradictory."

I said "a bit self-contradictory" and I stand by that. He sounds very hostile and ugly toward a lot of people which sounds negative to me. I think he intended the contradiction for humorous effect, of course, and I'm not slamming him.

vbspurs said..."The retort to Methadras was unworthy of the Ann we know."

He insulted me and I paid him back in kind. Are you really talking about "the Ann we know" or are you trying to discipline me into behaving the way you'd like? I think I should speak more sharply, not less, and I very much appreciate your contributions here, but that reads as push back to me and I'm dead set against push back.

If you read what he's saying closely he's admitting that conservatives are screwed...in the short term. McCain, running as a Democrat lite, is unelectable. Why go for the ersatz version of socialism when you can get the real thing? In the long term, after the horror of an Obama or a Hillary presidency, makes no difference which, the country will be more than ready to embrace conservative principles anew. So in that sense he's trying to impart a positive outlook to dittoheads.

I know his basic point is intended to cheer people up. He demands optimism and he won't give up even if it means thinking of victory only in the long term. My post is intended to point you to the whole thing, which you have to read to complete the idea. Ugh, why am I explaining my method? Don't be such a drag.

Okay, I'll try to drag and killjoy less. :D

I fully understand what he was saying though. There is this skein of thought in the conservative movement that does not want to be spoken of and that is the negativity that has crept into it. That unspoken sentiment is the one that says that conservativism is being pushed back incrementally and it can be seen and felt day by day. Not because it is incorrect, but because the opposing and opposition view is the dominant one in government and politics and therefore it affects everyone. Politics and policy effect everyone whether your are politically savvy and politically involved or not.

Many conservatives feel and think this way, but they dare not speak about it because in doing so they would be admitting that conservativism isn't getting the traction is desperately deserves. You can see the incremental push back in taxation, regulation, in the entitlement programs in the budget, in the attacks on traditional institutions, in how conservatives in positions of power would rather go along to get along instead of fighting for the principals that they hold dear, but instead take the expedient way out for political points with the other side. I totally understand what he was saying in the sentiment of negativity.

You can see the incremental push back in taxation, regulation, in the entitlement programs in the budget, in the attacks on traditional institutions, in how conservatives in positions of power would rather go along to get along instead of fighting for the principals that they hold dear

Me, I see it in the loss of the House, the loss of the Senate, the impending further losses of seats in both chambers in November, the pathetic slate of candidates who ran for the presidential nomination, and the victory of John McCain in that race. All that. And that's not even getting to whether or not McCain wins in November, because it matters only a little if he does.

And it isn't Limbaugh's fault, as a poster above (Alan) says. If any one individual is to blame it's Bush, and for several reasons. Too many reasons to go into here. Bottom line, the Republicans are in total disarray, with no leadership in the offing to lead them back.

That's not negative, that's a fact. One of Limbaugh's pet phrases used to be, "Relax, we're winning, folks." Or something like that. You don't hear him say that anymore. So he knows it too.

He sounds very hostile and ugly toward a lot of people which sounds negative to me. I think he intended the contradiction for humorous effect, of course, and I'm not slamming him.

When I read the transcript, I didn't get a harsh tone from it. I've heard that particular rant before, and the tone I've heard was "these are the facts," realism vs negativism. I think hearing the audio versus reading the transcript probably explains the disconnect.

I didn't think you were slamming him. We always know when you slam someone.

And I always think, when you speak sharply to someone, "Here's a teachable moment." Then I pay close attention, because even when I don't agree with you, I like the way your law-professor mind works. I was married to a lawyer once, and realized I could never be one -- my brain just isn't organized that way.

vbspurs said..."The retort to Methadras was unworthy of the Ann we know."

He insulted me and I paid him back in kind. Are you really talking about "the Ann we know" or are you trying to discipline me into behaving the way you'd like? I think I should speak more sharply, not less, and I very much appreciate your contributions here, but that reads as push back to me and I'm dead set against push back.

I did? I assure you that insulting you never entered into my mind or in the line of thought I wrote to you.

(probably the only time Emerson's been used to comment approvingly on Rush Limbaugh)

(and before you think I agree with all that transcendentalist crap, that whole movement is a perfect example of foolish inconsistency, and Emerson was one of the more foolish and inconsistent of the bunch, but I still love that quote)

He insulted me and I paid him back in kind. Are you really talking about "the Ann we know" or are you trying to discipline me into behaving the way you'd like? I think I should speak more sharply, not less, and I very much appreciate your contributions here, but that reads as push back to me and I'm dead set against push back.

Background Context:

Victoria emailed Ann to complain about a poster the other night, due to his continued disgusting behaviour, specifically towards another poster.

Ann declined, stating she was happy to delete certain posts if Victoria could point out them to her, and if she judged them to be offensive, she would.

Victoria said, not on your nellie this is your blog, I'm not a stool pigeon, and furthermore, I want to see you dressed up in that 1974 camisole, come on, I know it's on your Flickr account.

Hey don't joke about that. I had to have a colonoscopy last week. Everything was fine, but talk about a pain in the ass. I really don't understand how the gay guys do it. Good luck to youse guys is all I can say. Sheeesh.

We shouldn't joke about this. From the number of commercials I see for some drug on ESPN ("it's not a going problem, it's a growing problem"), prostrate trouble is clearly the number-one crisis in America.

Hey don't joke about that. I had to have a colonoscopy last week. Everything was fine, but talk about a pain in the ass. I really don't understand how the gay guys do it. Good luck to youse guys is all I can say. Sheeesh.

That reminds me of a story that a doctor friend of mine, who is an ENT (ear, nose, & throat) specialist was telling me about how some specialties in the medical profession have clear homoerotic issues. I kind of chuckled at that, but then he looked me with all seriousness and said, "You just be lucky I'm not your proctologist."

We shouldn't joke about this. From the number of commercials I see for some drug on ESPN ("it's not a going problem, it's a growing problem"), prostrate trouble is clearly the number-one crisis in America.

Oh yeah. If you didn't know any better, your other problem is that you don't have enough Viagra, Cialis, Levitra in your diet. Heaven help you if you are a woman and you watch the Lifetime Movie Network because if you didn't know any better you are depressed and fat and the side effects are worse than the cure.

I don't call them anything but I think of them as either vampires or vipers. One sucks out my life energy and somehow manages to be energized by that, the other isn't satisfied until I've been envenomated with their own brand of poison, apparently at every single encounter. They've contributed significantly to my present misanthropy. This forces me to avoid contact and to Photoshop®™ motorized inflatable floaty boats.

I don't know anything about Rush Limbaugh except he cracks me up whenever I hear him. I curious though, is there an online word counter or something?

I don't know anything about Rush Limbaugh except he cracks me up whenever I hear him. I curious though, is there an online word counter or something?

*dogpiles "+wordcounter"*

It's funny you mention word counters, Chip, because last night a vaguely sinister experiment by a Carnegie-Mellon Ph.D. student.

It seems she had set up a code to analyse the top blogs' commentaries, which included LGF, Atrios, Kos etc.

(Despite Althouse being high up there, this blog wasn't judged worthy of research -- and it's not hard to figure out why. Comments here are way too neutral for political blogs. Their algorithms would go nuts)

"We are researchers in the fields of Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing (that's what "NLP" stands for in this context, as [name] guessed, not Neurolinguistic Programming). In a nutshell, this means we are computer scientists who develop algorithms that use text data in order to automate tasks involving text in languages like English. As many of you guessed, this often involves statistical analysis of text data. If the idea that computer programs are "watching" your posts and comments and counting words is disconcerting, consider that this sort of automated statistical analysis is what makes search engines work (and probably what led you to find our files).

Everything we crawled was public, and we crawled in accordance withrobots.txt, so we didn't think to ask permission from LGF or any ofthe other sites (some liberal, some conservative) we crawled."

I don't think the blog owner or the commenters minded, and anyway, who doesn't know whatever they post in the public domain has very little protection in this last remaining Wild West? :)

So this bum doctor asks me if it's alright with me if an intern sits in on our session and I think, "Well they have to learn somehow," and so I go, "Sure." Mistake, that. The doctor goes, "Lay on your side." I'm doing the NYT crossword in book form to keep my mind of this so I'm sort in a word-oriented world, and the doctor says to the intern, "You see here, the anal canal is divided in to three quadrants." I think, "Now, what's wrong with that sentece? And I go, "If there's only three of them then why are they called quadrants?" And the doctor goes, "Dunno. Hang on." Then he and the intern abruptly leave the room and I'm just sitting there with these three giant klieg lights shining straight into my bum. It takes them f-o-r-e-v-e-r to return, like they're looking up 'quadrant' or something. Now the moral of the story is; don't ever challenge a proctologist when you're vulnerably situated.

Yes. It's treason, a capital offense. They're properly called Graham Biscuits but I like to blend in as much as possible. In fact, when I lived in Louisiana I even said ya'll. I first time I said it I thought the whole world stopped and stared at me, but in reality nobody even flinched. So I kept on doing it. Boy, I'm glad that's over with.

In all seriousness, and after thinking about it for a few hours and concluding it's best not to conjecture much less conclude, what does that mean, exactly? Because one of the things I've always found so provocative about this blog (its posts, first and foremost, but also, secondarily, its comments section) is that, in one way or another, it's almost entirely about push back, against one thing and another. I mean, that's a good chunk of its charm. Your charm, Althouse--and I've considered that a good thing.

So, in all sincerity, and respectfully, I repeat: what does that--I'm dead set against push back--mean, exactly? Is that pushback is only OK if it comes from one direction? Or, what?

One of the worst things about human interaction is when matters are left pending.

It becomes then a question of second-guessing what innuendo is contained in each and every followup.

Then, when you see an opening to refer obliquely to that past misunderstanding, or in this case, situation, you seize it.

The correct thing to do would be to approach the person and ask them what is up, and sort it out privately.

But that rarely happens.

I want to make myself crystal clear. I hate these games. I hate the games women play with each other. I credit this with the complete circus-quality of modern feminism, and it's utter failure as a philosophy.

I also hate especially that they sap out the positive energy out of a place, to reference Limbaugh's "negative people" quote.

And speaking in general terms now, I refuse to play along, as someone's perpetual verbal punching bag.

Let's go back to the beginning:

Ann, I don't like how you completely ignore the mean-spiritedness of your blog troll. If you think there's no malice in it, you are wrong. Deadpan comedy is used in satire all the time, like Colbert does. But do not mistake the rage and self-loathing behind it.

In this thread you lunged at Methadras for a perceived insult; both Joan and I both independently attributed your response to jetlag, because it was shirty comment. In short, we excused you for it because it's not like you. That's all.

The two situations are not connected, they are not related critiques, since the latter is not even a criticism.

I hope now that we can move on, perhaps one day having a laugh at ourselves, since there is one positive quality about time -- it gives one the unexpected gift of grace.

Oh, XWL, I'd bet money you'd get along just fine with my resident sweetie (and you might even get a kick out of my son, who, by the way, in latter years, eats seafood--including sashimi--on occasion, which while that might seem discordant, is simply evidence of the weird, even improbable, compromises people hammer out when being "each of us yet together" is the imperative).

Who can understand why two lovers who idolised one another the night before, because of one word misinterpreted, split up, eastward one, west the other, goaded by hate, revenge, love and remorse, and never see each other again, both cloaked in lonely pride. This is a miracle renewed every day and is none the less miraculous for that.

1. My original comments to Methadras were sharp on the level I perceived him as being insulting to me by challenging whether I read the transcript.

2. My opposition to "the push back" means I will not let people change my standards about what I'm going to talk about and how I'm going to speak (and who I'm going to let say what here). I especially resist any suggestion that because I am female, I need to maintain more of an atmosphere of niceness and decorum. (And the "jet lag" comment is not as nice as you think it is.)

3. I don't get the "punching bag" point. This is a discussion. There is a back and forth, but the person you think is a troll isn't even hitting anyone. It's true that a while back he greeted you in a saucy way. I deleted that after someone complained bitterly, but only because it was directed at an individual. It wasn't a punch though, and since it only was on one post, even if it was a punch, that still wouldn't make you a "punching bag."

Hello again everyone. this is your announcer with a recap of today's game through the seventh inning of play.

Our starting pitcher, Althouse, threw a hanging knuckleball to the batter in the form of commenting on Rush Limbaugh's dislike of being around negative people.

Victoria bunted an agreeing comment that included the word 'Hoovers'.

A fan in the stands recited a limerick about Hoovers.

Ann and Methadras had a conference at the mound about Victoria's Limbaugh hit. The conference continued until other players re-started the game.

Victoria, taunting the pitcher, took a long lead off first base, and then began heckling Althouse about jetlag. Joan, the first base coach joined in the heckling.

Althouse threw several hard, fast knock-back tosses to first base in order to push back Victoria onto base and quiet down the coach.

Several players in the dugout yelled out their objections. No call from the ump.

Coach York spoke of French film allusions. The game continued uninterrupted.

Althouse fired a smokin' fastball at Victoria, with the call 2-1, Victoria took a big swing and whiffed.

Coach Trooper said something about breasts.

First base coach Methadras resumed heckling the pitcher.

Coach Trooper tells coach Methradas to take his/her head out of his/her ass. The crowd snickers. Methdras looks around and finds a polyp.

Victoria yells out her explanation for heckling the pitcher.

A time-out is called so Victoria and Coach Trooper can have a conference at first base about colonoscopies, vaseline and anal sex.

Chip Ahoy, one of the stadium vendors, shares his colonoscopy story with the fans in the stands, then sells everyone some home-made snacks. Other fans chime in with comments about their favorite snacks.

Titus, looking fabulous and sitting the players' wives section of the stadium and wearing a perfect-fitting sparkly team tee-shirt yells out to the players.

Play resumes with more heckling for first base.

Althouse fires a hard, low fastball at the batter. It's a swing and a miss as Althouse puts another K on the scoreboard and waits for the next batter.

The fans in the stands talk among themselves as the dugout coach calls for a designated hitter to see if anyone can score a run off Althouse tonight.

It sure doesn't look like the opposing team has anything for Althouse tonight, fans. The knuckleballs, curveballs and hanging fastballs have caught the batters unawares, and it'a been strikeout after strikeout.

So part way through the seventh inning the score stands at Althouse 3, opposing batters 0.

We'll be right back after this brief commercial message from Spotted Cow beer.

A tennis match would be more appropriate. I would be sitting by my tennis husband coach as well as the other fabulous tennis wives. Tiger is there too with his beautiful wife. Some of the tennis players Russian supermodel girlfriends are next to me and I am speaking with them.

The camera pans and I am totally not into being videotaped as I drink my fabulous expesnsive water and speak with Tiger.

It wasn't a punch though, and since it only was on one post, even if it was a punch, that still wouldn't make you a "punching bag."

This particular situation noted has not been, and will never be, about me. I didn't even approach you with the concern regarding me, as indeed, you noted. My tipping point is when I see it occur to others.

Theoretically, Ann, I could seek out instances of what I mean to show you, then email you the links; not only is that not my style, but having read privately and publicly your opinion, it's a bit pointless. Your position is clear. We must accept it.

Let me just say that your "suggestion that because I am female I need to maintain more of an atmosphere of niceness and decorum", highlighted by Meade, is not true.

That may be a generational reading, but that doesn't come into play with me at all. I don't come here because you're a nice lady. I come here because you're a smart blogger.

If Instapundit allowed comments, I'd comment over there too -- a lot. But somehow, I think if I had a similar to-and-fro, he would never infer both things hovering in this thread: that (a) the Methradas comment about jetlag was some kind of related "push-back"; (b) that I did so because he was a guy and supposed to act logical.

That's the correlative reply to "act feminine", and as everyone can see, it's hella funny.

It is because it would just never happen. Guys don't think like that, and thank heavens. These suggestions are not there, implied or otherwise. We see reactions to insinuations based on sex and race on the Blogosphere all the time, indeed, we make fun of that attitude on Althouse. At least, I thought so.

Okay, well, here we are.

I had signed off last night like a youthful, valiant Queen Mum, waving my hanky, lobbing references to grace, tea and scones. I think I got in a reference about someone's prostate gland -- I'm not sure, but I hope so.

Hello again everyone and welcome back to beautiful Mallard Field her in Madison, Wisconsin, the "city so schizi that it has four lakes".

It looks like play is about to resume; the players are back on the field.

Say Bob, didja ever watch that movie Major League?

Sure, Jim. Isn't that the one about there being no crying in baseball? Yes I did, and that's a very valuable lesson for today's young players trying to make it into the bigs. There's no crying in baseball.

And now for a brief timeout brought to you by the nice folks a Johnsonville Sausage.

Is this thread as entertaining and bewildering as I think it is, or is the Vicodin I'm taking after my woeful encounter with my dentist?

reader_iam: yum. steak. I was vegetarian for 20 years and suddenly, five years ago, just really wanted a steak. So that was it for vegetarianism.

The first time I cooked meat in the house my dog ran into the kitchen and stood barking at the griddle. What could possibly smell so good? Could he please have some, now? Then I made a turkey breast for Christmas and he stole the leftover part off the counter. Ate it all up, quietly, on his bed in the back room. This return to meat has been very good for him.

Holy shit. I leave for a few hours and I come back and it's all two-snaps of the fingers, all up in the face, with an oh-no-you-didn't atmosphere and then we get a play-by-play. Man, I love this popcorn.

Thanks, everyone. That's it for today's game from the friendly confines of beautiful Mallard Field in Madison, the 'town that tax reform forgot'.

The team is headed out on an extended road trip that includes a three game stand against the Toronto Trolls, then back to Madison for a Thursday evening game. Remember fans, every Thursday is Lesbian Night at the ballpark sponsored by Birkenstock footware.

We'll see you Thursday and until then this is the voice of Madison baseball saying drive carefully and always wear a condom. G'Night everyone!

Whoa now, Mr. M. H. Radio Announcer Hero. Wait just a New York Yankee pinstripe minute. For those keeping score at home and just for the record books, name of the movie -

A League of Their Own (1992)

Get it? Like A Room of One's Own only American and not directed by a man whose afraid of Virginia Woolf (because, like, who wouldn't have been?). A movie as American as baseball and popcorn and Chevy trucks although I'm sure that even in cricket there is no crying over spilt ale. Wouldn't be cricket. Unless it's your last Guinness, which really would give you something to cry about. Otherwise, that's just the way the Irish scones crumble if you catch my Oreo, rolling through the rye.

Directed by Penny Marshall who is not and has never been a vegan as far as I know. Not that there isn't anything wrong with that. With Tom Hanks (Mega star), Geena Davis (Major babe), Madonna (Ma donna).

Daughter of Meade - who turns 21 in two weeks btw and who is far more beautiful than Madonna ever was or will be in my completely objective licensed and fully credentialed opinion - must have watched that movie on video, from age 9 to age 15, oh, shoot, I don't know, but if I had a nickel for every time she watched it, I'd have enough nickels to pay for, well, no, not even one week's worth of college tuition. But trust me, it would be enough nickels to buy a mocha java grandiose something or other and still have enough nickels left over to leave the barista/o a generous tip. And that would be on top of this tip, a truism if ever there was one:

In politics there is crying. In fact, there is weeping, there is moaning, and there is pathetic outright blubbery sobbing.

It's revolting.

But in baseball and blogging? That's right, team - No Freaking Crying.

Ever.

If you cry in baseball or blogging, you are a crybaby because crying is for babies. Big Clinton crybabies, just off the turnip truck Obamamama babies, little itty bitty tiny dimpled Huckababies.

But, babe, in baseball and blogging, you gotta suck... it... up. You gotta be your own Hoover and suck up the negativity and defeatism and fatalistic gender card-playing like... well, there really is no other way to say it --

Like a man. Like a man with a men's room of one's own. Like a man who is not a politician but a poet with the need for poetic license and the personal liberty to create art.

Meade, I caught the movie title switcheroo also, but thought I'd just let it go. A League of Their Own was a much, much better movie than Major League, which was your typical underdog sports team wins all just to spite an evil owner/manager (see: Slapshot, which I believe is the prototype).

I use the "There's no crying in (fill in the blank)" all the time. Also its variant, "there's no whining in (fill in the blank)."

I have to disagree with you, though -- unfortunately, there is much crying (and whining) in blogging. But if you know where to point your browser, you can simply pretend it's not there.

Ha. Joan, Thanks for your response and I'm sure you're right about crying in blogging. Truth is, nowadays there's even crying in baseball. It's sad. Okay, there's crying in everything. And studies have shown that crying can be a good thing. Even whining can be cathartic.

But here's the thing I tried to teach my kid once she was no longer a baby: Do it on your own time. Take yourself to your room of one's own, get control of your own emotions, and then come back and talk to me. No games; no manipulation. Then I will listen.

Seems to have worked. She's a sensitive kid but she's also tough. And honest.